Leadership

[DVaut1]

I assume your expected reply (as has been made before) is that, we expect Saudi Arabians/Iranians/etc. to condemn terrorism;

1) This is different from expecting Muslims to condemn terrorism (which I still believe is a request of bigotry, although perhaps we can point to evidence of Islamic scripture/law which indicates there's something about Islam itself that tolerates terrorism); I don't think you can point to dark-colored skin and say that it indicates anything about behavior and abilities.

2) Asking Iranians/Saudi Arabians to condemn terrorism isn't necessarily in poor taste; as there are legitimate questions as to whether or not their governments support terrorism; I don't think there are any legitimate questions to ask of black leaders regarding looting, as I can't imagine any of them support the violent looting we're referring to here.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]


Actually I can dismiss that.

The chances that I would be a victim of an overt racist insult/harm is extremely small. In the high tech circles the racism if any, is non-existent at the lower levels of management and dismissed at higher levels under the guise of qualifications.

In any event for you to draw any conclusion, one way or the other, based on inputs or non-inputs from three people shows that you are coming from a place where your mind is made up.

[/ QUOTE ]

You continue to mistake what I wrote. I did not say that you would have been the victim; I asked if you have ever PERSONALLY OBSERVED any incident.

Moreover I DID NOT use it to draw a concusion; I used it to suggest something regarding frequency of occurrence--which is a mathematically supportable concept. Three large samples (you, me and Cyrus) and not one observed occurrence over 100 years in any of our experiences. OBVIOUSLY that is not conclusive but it IS statistically suggestive.

Finally, the argument is NOT over whether or not racist attitudes exist at all; it is regarding the net harmful effects of racism in recent years subtracting the beneficial effects of programs like affirmative action. I contend that racism is not widespread and that its net seriously deleterious effects in recent decades have been minimal, or even more than counterweighed, by the effects of things like affirmative action. You aren't even addressing my arguments but are flailing away at related matters which I am not even debating.

Precision, please.

[MMMMMM]

Yes DVaut1--but the ABSENCE of anecdotal evidence forthcoming at least suggests that the claimed prevalence of occurrence may actually not be as ubiquitous as surmised. That's my point.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes DVaut1--but the ABSENCE of anecdotal evidence forthcoming at least suggests that the claimed prevalence of occurrence may actually not be as ubiquitous as surmised. That's my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

...."may actually not" is the key operative phrase in the above statement, and that leaves the whole premise up to subjective speculation and interpretation.

I thought that the issue at hand was M's 'race card & race issues are dead' statement?

Are we moving away from that, or are we being diverted away from that?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
1) How can you say the 'race card' is dead? Did you not accuse leftists of trying to constantly playing the race card? Is not the implication, then, that the race card is alive?

2) You didn't merely say the race card; you said 'race issues' as well...then you went on to reference Affirmative Action, one of the preeminent political issues of the day - clearly race issues are alive, and you're wrong. Look around at the 10 or so posts here dealing with New Orleans and race; do you still stand by your claim that race issues are dead? It was an outlandish claim;

[/ QUOTE ]

As explained already elsewhere in this thread (maybe you missed it): I meant that the race card and race issues are dead in the sense that they really don't have a leg to stand on anymore. Certainly there are those who make a habit or a business out of ballyhooing such things but their case is more or less dead in the water. There is no REAL race card to be played any more. It's just a FAKE race card. It's almost like they're beating an old, dead horse. Serious racism in this country is fairly rare and has very little overall effect now. So those playing the race card are trying to utilize a largely dead issue. That's my point. Does my statement make more sense now when looked at in that light?

[ QUOTE ]
And you're never hesistant to point out when others are wrong; so grow up and take it when you give it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm don't think I was wrong; I think we both simply had different ideas of what I meant by that statement. Perhaps I should have anticipated that my statement could be taken another way from that which I intended, and taken pains to ensure my meaning was less potentially ambiguous. Honestly though, when I wrote it, it didn't occur to me to look at it in the light you mention. I'm not faulting your reading in this case so perhaps I should fault my writing. However at most I was guilty of writing something which could be taken multiple ways, and not realizing it.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Racist = natural differences among people in regards to character and ability due to skin pigmentation;

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's where we part company -- but mostly because we keep rearranging the cart and horse. If I accept your definition, and do not believe these differences exist, you can understand my interest when black leaders suggest that black plight, or black concerns override the regional plight and general concern. You can understand why someone who does not see real differences would question the meaning, intent, and differentiating issues from someone who did suggest there was a difference. You seem to think questioning the motivation and character of people who propose racism exists is racist behavior. I don't.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, why does nearly everyone on this board feel the need to "win" an argument at any cost?

[/ QUOTE ]



What is your reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

I generally argue logically, whereas many argue for other reasons. I hope to see the triumph of reason, and wish to learn. Many others however appear to have nothing better to do that try to win "points" (often partisan points) by intellectually dishonest or unsound means. Some examples include putting words in someone's mouth, although that can at times be an honest error.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, why does nearly everyone on this board feel the need to "win" an argument at any cost? Seriously the maturity level here is no better than junior high school. It's literally unbelievable.


[/ QUOTE ]


Numerous posts trying to let everyone know you didn't say what you really said...and EVERYONE ELSE is consumed with winning...

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I am being unfairly attacked on that basis. My words were misquoted and my meaning was taken the wrong way. I'm not so much trying to "win" a point with the explanation, as to clear the air and clarify things.

See how you are mixing up trying to clarify things, with trying to "win" a point? If I were trying to "win" a point I would be hammering on the point itself and why it must be correct. But I am not hammering that my point is correct; I am only trying to clarify my intended meaning, since it was both misquoted and misunderstood.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume your expected reply (as has been made before) is that, we expect Saudi Arabians/Iranians/etc. to condemn terrorism; ... This is different from expecting Muslims to condemn terrorism (which I still believe is a request of bigotry ...

[/ QUOTE ]
The analogy of Saudi Arabia was used to (try to) make an analogy between (Terrorism/State Sponsored Terrorism) and (Criminal Behavior/Racial Behavior). Saudi Arabia is segregated from the rest of the world in terms of geography and citizenship, and has leaders who voice their intentions and beliefs. Since most of the 911 terrorists were Saudi, it makes sense to ask the Saudis if they approve of or sponsored the behavior. Blacks in a similar sense have segregated themselves through leaders who speak for a group identified by skin color. Since it was noted that most of the looters were black (and their leader became vocal and made his presence known), it makes sense to me to ask if he will condemn the criminal behavior.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, why does nearly everyone on this board feel the need to "win" an argument at any cost? Seriously the maturity level here is no better than junior high school. It's literally unbelievable.


[/ QUOTE ]


Numerous posts trying to let everyone know you didn't say what you really said...and EVERYONE ELSE is consumed with winning...

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I am being unfairly attacked on that basis. My wordzs were misquoted and my meaning was taken the wrong way. I'm not so much trying to "win" a point with explanatory that as to clear the air and clarify things.

See how you are mixing up trying to clarify things, with trying to "win" a point? If I were trying to "win" a point I would be hammering on the point itself and why it must be correct. But I am not hammering that my point is correct; I am only trying to clarify my intended meaning, since it was both misquoted and misunderstood.

[/ QUOTE ]


....your words weren't misquoted by all.....Numbers of posters have copied them exactly as you wrote them, myself included.

If you're saying that you didn't mean what you said, why not come out and say it?

All you've done is attempt to obfuscate the issues brough up as a result of your post.

Dvalut has said a number of times..... 'you can dish it out, but you can't take it'.

You're continued insistence on attacking your critics in a number of different ways appears to be consistent with the current climate of political 'spin control' and demagoguery.